Gay Marriage

[Jingthing]

As a USAer with decades following gay politics, and having personally met some of our "leaders" including the late Harvey Milk, I would like to make a few comments.

I think Jonnie makes some points about the gay marriage issue that have some merit, but ...

I seriously doubt that the majority of gay USAers are against legalized gay marriage (or civil partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage). However, the fact that this has seemingly become the one and only issue of the so called gay agenda is questioned by alot of people including me, because there alot of other issues that have taken the back burner. I don't think most gays would want to marry if it was legal, and even a smaller number would want to adopt children. But lots would, so I don't understand the objection to extending these equal civil rights to gay people. After all, there are millions of children thoughout the world needing parents who are not finding them. Gay people come from parents and some of them want to be parents. Adoptive parents are parents too ... And of course there is always artificial insemination for lesbians.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Jingthing

[JonnieB]

I seriously doubt that the majority of gay USAers are against legalized gay marriage (or civil partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage). However, the fact that this has seemingly become the one and only issue of the so called gay agenda is questioned by alot of people including me, because there alot of other issues that have taken the back burner.

I don't think most gays would want to marry if it was legal, and even a smaller number would want to adopt children. But lots would, so I don't understand the objection to extending these equal civil rights to gay people. After all, there are millions of children thoughout the world needing parents who are not finding them. Gay people come from parents and some of them want to be parents. Adoptive parents are parents too ...

Jing...you cover a couple of my basic arguments. First, this obsession on marriage as a civil right from a vocal group of our community "sucks up all the oxygen" as the saying goes as to other important issues (both "gay" specific ones and the progressive agenda more generally). (I am not saying all gays are politically progressive but many are and are active in progressive politics and the marriage issues gets an inordinate amount of attention by them. Therefore, other elements of the progresive community get the impression that this issue must be of buring importance to the gay community when, in my opinion, it is not. Therefore, political energy is wasted by the progressive community on an issue that is really not of major concern to those effected.)

As I stated in a earlier post, I am strongly in favor of strong civil-rights protections for ALL people. I would be support laws that basically said that any government conferred right, obligation, or benefit that was affotded to opposite-sex couples in civilly recognized partnership relationships (ie civil "marriage) are also available to same-sex couples on the same basis. In effect, the rights, duties, and benefits conferred by all levels of government to opposite-sex couples would also be available to same-sex couples.

i also agree with you that the use of this right would be quite low in the gay community...much lower than in the straight community. But at least they will have the option if they so desire.

Of course, this would apply in the relationship between the person/couple and the government...it would not require non-governmental organizations or private groups to recognize to recognize such relationships. Employers, however, would be required to extend the same benefits to SS couples as to OS ones...both as employees and customers.

Okay, everyone happy now.

[lazeeboy]

Making six kids helped me to realize that my gay friend was right in 1964, when he told me I was gay! Having children didn't make me hetero, it just made me a father. I don't regret having kids.

well said pb

[PeaceBlondie]

Thanks, lazeeboy, but I suspect that I need to spell something out to jonnieb, even though I agree with much that he said in his opening post (not all of which I've read even yet).

jonnie, there is a generation gap among gays. Have you ever seen a movie called Brokeback Mountain? Do you think those two cowboys, or I or ProThaiExpat or countless of other men who came of age prior to Stonehenge (maybe that event was Stonewall; I wasn't there ) had half the choice that young adults have now? Thanks to folks at Stonewall and folks like Harvey Milk, it is finally acceptable (at least in Thailand, but not in Texas! ) to tell a stranger, "My boyfriend told me that....."

I had a small emergency at the hospital Saturday, and the kind Thai lady next to me needed to explain something to the technician, so I said to her, "I have six children, AND a Thai boyfriend. Please talk to him now on my mobi'...." I couldn't do that anywhere in Houston except the gay ghetto.

Some of us were brainwashed by heteros so that we didn't know what these strange feelings meant. We were told by the real perverts (straight people) that gay sex was perverted, nasty, immoral, unnatural, etc., until we couldn't help but believe it. As the comedian Flip Wilson used to say in a falsetto voice while he wore Josephine's dress, "The devil made me do it!

[ProThaiExpat]

PeaceBlondie: So true, your post took me back in time to my high school days when fear kept me from acting out on a gay "pass".

Later, in the Navy, it happened again. Can you imagine how perverted it was for me to go "on the beach" with a shipmate and orchestrate our joint "f...." session so I could look at his body "in flagrante delicto".

All this was before I did what all good boys do as dictated by society, marry and pro-create.

I am blessed with a daughter that is a "teflon Catholic", so we have an open and tell all relationship. Yes, I was at one time a guy who would not date Catholic girls lest I fall in love with one and marry her and be required to raise my kids in that church. As is so often the case, I ended up marrying one, made the written promises at the time of the marriage to raise my kids as Catholics. I was divorced shortly after my daughter was born so I didn't have to witness her "indoctrination" into that church, but fortunately, it didn't take and she is basically a sectarian humanist, as I am.

Being from a different generation than SammyB is one issue, the other is those of us who truly wanted to be "good boys" and do the "right thing". Talk about a lamb being led to slaughter. Fortunately, it has all come out well in the end, although my Catholic ex-wife still hates me with a passion after 35 years, but then again, she hates her brother as well and is the bane of my daughters existence. A lesson for all: that to change anything in your life because someone else might think ill of you is pure folly. A lesson I wished I had learned earlier in my life.

[ProThaiExpat]

PS: Yes, I would have probably gone though a "gay conversion" academy in my attempt to stay on the "straight" and narrow.

I am much more sane now and while I may live, what JohnnyB describes as a "copy" of a "hetero-lifestyle", I do not define my lifestyle in sexual terms. What I do in bed is only my business and what I do in bed does not define my lifestyle.

I live the way I want and if it happens to be a lifestyle lived by most of the people on the planet, so be it. I would suggest that JohnnyB is living a belligerent lifestyle based on a recognition in his own mind of his sexuality.

If it weren't for vocal gays like JohnnyB and the flaming queens seen everywhere on "festive occasions" gay rights would not have advanced to the point they have.

Political strategists who attempt to advance gay rights, have picked same sex marriage as a dominant issue in todays political world in the U.S.

While those who don't care about the issue such as JohnnieB, it would indeed be a misplaced priority.

My take on what is going on is the abject fear of the religious right is that if the courts ever get to decide the issue based on civil rights and GWB hasn't packed the courts with his right wing religionist judges, they are certain they will lose. Why else would then run madly around to get amendments to state constitutions to ban same sex unions.

The irony of all this is that the very anti-same sex marriage advocates of the religious or social right were also Republican state rights advocates and thus they are the ones who defeated the bills introduced by their own party to amend the federal constitution to ban same sex unions, not the liberal gay rights advocates. Thus, as if history is repeating itself, there will be a patchwork of states that permit same sex marriage/unions and those that don't, exactly the way it was n 1947 when inter-racial marriages were legal in some states and not in others.

Imagine, in today's age of enlightenment if legal same sex couples, travel to another state are arrested for being married to someone of the same sex just as inter-racial couples were 60 years ago.

[samtam]

However, granted, we do have to make the best of accepting the reality of the world in which we find ourselves. If you want to reduce our essence to the importance of inheritance tax benefits, that's up to you. If this is such a concern for you, it's possible to own assets jointly, therefore, with the death of one owner, the other is still the owner.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Without the Civil Partnership (in UK) the other partner's assets are subject to inheritance tax. This isn't the b-all and end-all of the reason for taking this route, but I aint about to ignore this opportunity, available in UK, whether it's round or square. The fact that it has come to pass, is a benefit that I am quite willing to accept. Luckily there is more of a "liberal democracy" approach in UK, whereas in America, well, who knows. The recent programme by Christiane Amanpour for CNN, "God's Warriors", talking about the religious right is truly scary, and I do have sympathy for Americans who live under such a divided country, and amongst such ignorance.

[peekint]

I wonder if indeed it is the "generation gap" I'm hearing in this forum. It makes me shudder.

I arrived in SF the year Harvey Milk died (it's the reason I moved there). I was active in what I'd call the "second wave" of Gay politics (the first wave being after Stonewall, and the third after AIDS). It was a time of great hope, and also a time of sexual abandon. There was no AIDS, STDs were handled with a monthly clinic visit, and finding satisfying and enjoyable sex was as easy as taking the bus (it was only a quarter then - the bus, I mean).

Gay men, especially, asserted their new freedom to make love without being harassed or arrested. The idea of "settling down" and copying the "breeder" model seemed like a step back into the closet. And, maybe, at that time, it would have been.

But now, with the Gay community ghettoized in the big cities, cowering and afraid in the small towns, and patronized by TV like "Will and Grace" or the modern "Boys in the Band" called "Brokeback Mountain", the movement is stuck. It's no longer about the right to screw who you want and not be arrested. It's now about the right to share in all the legal and social protections, responsibilities and benefits which modern society is coming to believe belong to all people.

So, is Gay Marriage (Same Sex Marriage - ssm) a distraction? Only a few people will participate and benefit, goes the argument, and there are more important things.

The first half of that argument is irrelevant, the second half specious.

The statistics around the number of same sex couples taking advantage of marriage rights are difficult to obtain, but there are indications.

In the USA, where ss marriage rights don't have any force on the federal level, where most of the marriage benefits accrue, ssm still made up 16.7% of marriages in Massachusetts in 2006, a remarkably high number compared to the estimated Gay population of the state.

In places in which the right has been established longer - like the Netherlands and Belgium, the percentage is lower at 3 to 5%. The reason for the lower numbers can be argued - it's not necessary to accept the argument that "Gays don't want it"; other hypotheses could include the effects of social stigma (why aren't their more interracial marriages? is often answered by this argument), defects in the nature of the process and procedures (the right can exist, but be difficult to use - for instance, blacks had voting rights in the USA for years, but the processes and procedures prevented their taking advantage of them), and on and on.

But in the end, how many people would take advantage of a right has no bearing on whether or not the right should be granted. If that were so, there would be a good argument for taking the voting right away from American citizens, since so few of them exercise that right regularly, or at all!

The second argument appears to be that, if we fight about Gay Marriage, we are not fighting about X, Y or Z - or all three. At face, it might seem like an interesting argument. It's the one Mary Cheney used on Nightline when she was asked why she didn't advocate for ssm with her father, the Vice President of the USA. (This was just before she and her female partner had announced they were having a baby). "Gee, there are so many more important things in the world, you have to put this in perspective".

The reason this argument is specious is - who makes the list? Who makes the priorities? Khun Lek thinks that Darfur is the most important thing in the world. Khun Gung thinks that we need to be worrying about the child sex trade. Khun Bia thinks we should be acting on the War in Iraq. So many causes, so little time.

In the free market of ideas, the time is right for action when enough people are motivated and mobile. If indeed, it is now that Gay people are aware of and inspired by the possibility of equal rights for ss couples, then certainly there are plenty enough activists to "go around".

On a personal note, although I came from that "hedonistic" generation of the second Gay movement, for me it was a transition - from pent up, watching all my friends in high school date while my bf and I were necking in the car, afraid of being caught - to the ability to practically have sex on the sidewalk - to going back to necking with my bf (now husband) in the car, this time because it's fun.

Tom and I have a lot of "post-Milk, post-AIDS" friends (i.e. teens-30s). Few of them share the desire to define their homosexuality by bathhouse sex and opportunistic promiscuity. That's not to say they don't enjoy those things, too. But ultimately, they dream of a house, a car, a dog, and a man in their lives who will still be theirs when they are old and grey (or bald like me!). Like they say, young people are the hope for the future.

[farang prince]

Beautifully stated Pekint. In my view, we should be breaking down the doors throughout the world to gain legitimacy for same-sex marriages...so that we truly have equal rights under the law (not in the court of public opinion, but that's coming). That we, at least we can have the option of deciding whether to be married or not. I have a substantial retirement income and I want to make sure that those benefits are available to my partner when I pass on. Personally I don't care what they call it -- same sex marriage or civil union -- but I want to make sure that our gay partners have the same rights as hetero partners and I'm willing to advocate for this at any time and any place.

Edited August 28, 2007 by farang prince

[ProThaiExpat]

The last two posts deserve bravos.

It occurred to me that perhaps generational does in part explain activist funding. Certainly, older gays who desire to have same sex marriage available to them and have the money, now that they are older, are willing to fund the organizations that are in the forefront of the same sex marriage movement.

[peekint]

I think my comment on the generation gap is being misconstrued.

It is the younger (under 25 crowd) who are the greatest supporters of ssm. Polls consistently show that when these folks make up the majority, ssm will no longer be an issue among the voters. It will have turned into sort of a Simpsons "Doh!"

I find it is the older gay men (men in particular - older women seem to grow more liberal, not more conservative as they age) who seem to think that the pursuit of ssm is a waste of time or resources, or some sort of "co-opting" into the "breeder world".

I have a good friend from graduate school who has been with his male partner for over 20 years. They have a 16 year old adopted son. When Gavin Newson in SF "legalized" ssm, and just after Tom and I were married there, and before a court order stopped the marriages, I asked my friend when he was going to get married. He was horrified at the thought. He didn't want to rock the boat, was afraid of what implications it might have at his job. This is from a guy who, 20 years ago, was an activist. He was featured in newspapers and magazines as one of the first out Gay Vice Presidents of a major national corporation. He's not in the closet, people at work and around him know he's Gay, know he's in a relationship. But there was something about getting "married" that he thought would be offensive to the people around him.

Let's hope this is the LAST Gay closet door we have to open, the Gay Marriage Closet.

The last two posts deserve bravos.

It occurred to me that perhaps generational does in part explain activist funding. Certainly, older gays who desire to have same sex marriage available to them and have the money, now that they are older, are willing to fund the organizations that are in the forefront of the same sex marriage movement.

[geriatrickid]

It is the younger (under 25 crowd) who are the greatest supporters of ssm. Polls consistently show that when these folks make up the majority, ssm will no longer be an issue among the voters. It will have turned into sort of a Simpsons "Doh!"

I wouldn't exactly call the under 25 crowd supporters, it's more like they are disinterested. That is until they start paying more of their income in personal taxes.

For tax purposes, I am domiciled in a jurisdiction where ssm is legal and pay a massive amount in personal income tax. I am not looking at tax cuts anytime soon. Know why? Between the generous social payments for maternity, paternity & adoption leaves, child allowances, married couple credits, family tax breaks, VAT rebates etc., the additional tax breaks that were given to ssm couples only added to my burden as a single male taxpayer. My gay friends are in the same position as me and we are all getting reamed with none of us is enjoying it. Ok, call us selfish, callous or whatever, but all ssm did for us was to add to our economic burden as single males, iregardless of our sexuality. Justice for some came with injustice for others.

[peekint]

I'm not sure I get the connection between ssm and higher taxes.

It seems to me you have a problem with your home country's social welfare policies and how they are paid for, not with who or how many get the benefits.

Or are you saying the last rider on the bus should get the blame for the bus being overloaded?

Gay people (and other minorities) have heard that broken record before.

It is the younger (under 25 crowd) who are the greatest supporters of ssm. Polls consistently show that when these folks make up the majority, ssm will no longer be an issue among the voters. It will have turned into sort of a Simpsons "Doh!"

I wouldn't exactly call the under 25 crowd supporters, it's more like they are disinterested. That is until they start paying more of their income in personal taxes.

For tax purposes, I am domiciled in a jurisdiction where ssm is legal and pay a massive amount in personal income tax. I am not looking at tax cuts anytime soon. Know why? Between the generous social payments for maternity, paternity & adoption leaves, child allowances, married couple credits, family tax breaks, VAT rebates etc., the additional tax breaks that were given to ssm couples only added to my burden as a single male taxpayer. My gay friends are in the same position as me and we are all getting reamed with none of us is enjoying it. Ok, call us selfish, callous or whatever, but all ssm did for us was to add to our economic burden as single males, iregardless of our sexuality. Justice for some came with injustice for others.

[PeaceBlondie]

geriatric kid, I don't understand the tax angle, but I cannot imagine that in the USA, gay couples would be allowed to pay income tax jointly (which has a slight benefit over filing as singles). Tax benefits for having dependent children surely don't outweigh the expense of supporting the children. When my divorced gay friend Glenn was making good money and paying lots of tax, his two teenage sons lived with him at the insistence of his ex-wife. Glenn got tax breaks for being head of household, and for supporting two dependents. We're confusing tax rates for marital status with parent status.

I don't object to gay folks having special legal status as couples. More power to you. Maybe it is the most important current issue for gay rights. Having been married and divorced to a breeder, I'm no longer fond of marriage contracts.